Not Every Rivalry Is a Hunt
Why predation is not competition — and the confusion that lets extraction hide
Series “Dispatches from the Substrate” · No. 8
Look at two pictures
Look at the wolf first. He tears the sick deer out of the herd, and the picture is as old as fear itself: nature, red in tooth and claw. We were taught to read the founding law in it. The strong eat the weak, the market eats the slow, that is how the world runs, and whoever cannot bear it has failed to understand the biology.
Now look at the second picture, the one nobody paints, because it has no teeth. Some thirty-seven trillion cells in a single body, each with the same DNA, each capable of dividing until the host bursts — and they do not do it. They hold still. They divide when the tissue needs it, they die when the tissue needs it, they subordinate their own advantage to the whole. That restraint, not the wolf, is the actual invention of complex life.12
And now look at what happens when a single cell drops the restraint. It stops cooperating. It divides when nothing calls it. It ignores the signal to die. It pulls blood vessels toward itself, it eats its surroundings, it becomes — the oncologists have the word — re-Darwinized: thrown back into a race in which only its own copying advantage counts.23 This is called cancer. And the host dies.
Stop here. Both pictures are called "competition." Both are called "survival of the fittest." And yet: one is the condition of life, the other its most lethal collapse. The difference is not in the harshness. It lies elsewhere. Finding that place is the whole work of this essay.
Two things you must never confuse
There is a good competition, and there is predation, and the second dresses up as the first. Let us hold the good competition high first, honestly, without reservation.
When two bakers contend for the same customer, the price discovers what the bread is worth — information no planning office on earth can generate from itself, because it lies scattered across a thousand heads and becomes visible only in the contest.4 When a new method displaces an old one, knowledge is released that would otherwise have suffocated in habit.5 Rival hypotheses correct each other. Sport measures body against body and nobody dies. The election measures majority against majority and the losers go home, not into the grave. Dissent keeps power honest. That is good. That is more than good, it is the procedure by which an open order finds its own errors.
Now the cut. Look at the axes on which the one parts from the other.
The stakes. In good competition they are symmetric and bounded: the loser loses the customer, not his life, and may line up again tomorrow. In predation they are asymmetric: the loser is extracted, consumed, erased.
The feedback. Good competition keeps it alive — prices, entry, referees, dissent, the next election. Predation cuts it: the rival is killed, re-entry blocked, the signal suppressed.67
The externalities. Good competition carries its own costs. Predation tips them onto the substrate — onto the air, the climate, onto those who do not sit at the table.8
The escalation. Good competition is bounded, exit stays open. Predation compels: the participants are trapped, they cannot leave, they must go along.9
The substrate itself. Good competition preserves it, regenerates it. Predation consumes it — the rivals, the workers, the commons, the climate, the peace.
And hence the one formula worth keeping: predation is competition with the feedback cut. That is what turns an error-correcting contest into an extractive machine. Not the harshness. The severed feedback.
Nature is not a slaughterhouse
They sold us the wolf as a law. But biology says the opposite of the law they put in its mouth. Complex life exists at all only because mechanisms suppress competition at the cell level.2 The cell that restrains itself is the rule; the cell that feeds is the disease.
And put formally it sharpens further. Cancer is what happens when selection within the organism overruns selection between organisms — when the short-term multiplication of the single cell beats the long-term persistence of the whole.3 This is not a metaphor draped over the market but the precise structure of a level confusion: the part optimizes against the whole that carries it.
Cooperation, in all this, is not the feeble opposite of competing. It is mathematically stable, it is selected for, there are demonstrated pathways by which it beats defection.10 And — this is new and still to be read cautiously, correlational, from 2025 — more cooperative mammal species show less cancer.11 The one who cooperates is more rarely eaten from within.
So let us hold predation in its place. It is a bounded strategy within a cooperative order — the wolf belongs to the ecosystem, the tooth has its station. But predation made into the organizing principle of the whole, generalized, raised to a constitution: that is the definition of a lethal disease. Kropotkin set this against "red in tooth and claw" over a hundred years ago, out of spirit, without the apparatus we now have.12 The apparatus we now have. It proves him right.
The camouflage words
Here the confusion begins, and it is no accident, it is a business model. Predation borrows the vocabulary of good competition and puts on its moral dignity.
"Free market" — invoked in defense of cartels and captured agencies, that is, exactly the structures that negate the free market.13
"Low prices for the consumer" — invoked in defense of a pricing whose declared purpose is to end the competition that kept the prices low in the first place.7
"That is just human nature" — invoked to naturalize the skimming, against the evidence that the human is a conditional cooperator.14
"The tragedy of the commons" — invoked to prove that sharing is doomed, when the actual lesson runs: governed commons endure.15
Remember the pattern. The predator spends the moral credit of good competition to license conduct that kills good competition. He lives off the standing of what he destroys.
The myth that made the predator invisible
Take the sharpest case, the one where the defense is most elegant. We were told that predatory pricing is a fairy tale. A large firm that pushes prices below cost to ruin a rival only burns its own money; the moment it raises prices again, the next competitor arrives, and all the effort was for nothing. So no rational predator ever behaves this way. This story comes from McGee 1958, written about Standard Oil, and it shaped the law for half a century.16
Only it was theoretical, not empirical. Go into the trial record McGee himself claimed to use, and you find the instances of below-cost pricing he passed over. His argument was, per the re-examination, "theoretical, not empirical, and has had undue influence."17
And the trick in the argument? It assumes feedback always survives — that re-entry is always possible, that the market heals itself. That is precisely the condition the predator abolishes. On a platform that recoups through data, lock-in, and cross-market extraction what it lost in the price war, recoupment does not run through the one market you watch but crosswise through the whole system — and becomes "highly rational" while staying legally invisible.7 The myth wrote a special case into the law.
And the law followed. Since Brooke Group 1993 the plaintiff must prove two things: pricing below cost and a dangerous probability of recoupment.618 A hurdle that shelters the predator by demanding proof of his intent projected into the future. To be honest: Standard Oil's monopoly is established; whether predatory pricing specifically built it remains debated. contested But the claim that predation is irrational and therefore does not occur has been refuted.
Market power is not merit — at least not only
Now comes the more genteel defense. The big firms are simply the better ones. Concentration and high markups merely reflect the productivity of the "superstars" that the consumers themselves chose. Part of this is true. And part of it is camouflage. Let us separate the two.
Look at the numbers. The average markup over cost in the US rose from 18 percent (1980) to 67 percent (2014); at the top, in the highest tenth, from 46 to 160 percent; the profit rate roughly quadrupled.1920 Honesty demands the caveat: the magnitude is disputed, the marginal-cost definition leaves out selling and overhead, the 18-to-67 is not settled in stone. contested The direction, though, is broadly accepted.
Look at labor. The share of wages in value added fell — and it fell not because every firm paid less, but because weight shifted toward firms with an already low labor share. Employment in the largest firms rose from 28 (1987) to 34 percent (2016); manufacturing payroll's share of value added dropped by about sixteen points, almost entirely through this reallocation between firms.21
And look at where feedback is missing. Where an employer dominates the market, he can pay below the marginal product — the worker gets less than his contribution is worth, because he has nowhere else to go.22 This is monopsony, the mirror image of monopoly, and it is not merit, it is a severed exit. "Superstar," then, is both at once: real efficiency and a polite name for asymmetric extraction. You must separate case by case. Whoever throws the two into one pot has either not looked, or wants you not to look.
Cartel, rent, capture
There are forms of predation that do not even pretend to serve the consumer. They steal in the open, they only steal slowly.
The cartel. Firms that ought to compete agree on the price and skim. How much? The bias-corrected estimate names a mean of 15.47 percent, a median of 16.01.23 Earlier surveys name 31 to 49 percent, around 50 for the successful ones.24 The magnitude is disputed, contested, but both sides agree: the overcharge is positive and large. The cartel is the pure case — competition in name, predation in substance, the feedback quietly killed in the back room.
The rent. Where something is to be seized — a license, a privilege, a protected access — the fight over it becomes waste itself: real resources burn in the struggle for an allocation that creates nothing new.25 And the scale alarms: import-licensing rents made up roughly 7.3 percent of national income (India 1964), roughly 15 percent of GNP (Turkey 1968).26
The capture. The agency meant to protect is taken over by the protected. "As a rule, regulation is acquired by the industry and is designed and operated primarily for its benefit."13 But — and no laziness here — capture is real, yet not universal, not deterministic; not every regulation is bought.27 Whoever cries "all regulation is captured" is already using a camouflage word himself.
The commons that did not die
And here the oldest camouflage piece, repeated so often it passes for proven: the tragedy of the commons. Every herdsman, it goes, drives one animal too many onto the shared pasture, because the gain is wholly his and the damage only partly, so the pasture is inevitably ruined, so only private property or coercion can help.28 Thus a fable becomes a law of nature.
Only Hardin modeled unmanaged, open access — not the governed commons. And that is a difference like the one between a river without banks and a river. The English commons were stinted, laid with grazing rights, court-regulated, armed with fines. Hardin's thesis, per a legal historian, "has no application to common land in England and Wales. It is based on a false premise."29
And then came the fieldwork that won Ostrom the Nobel Prize. Hundreds of long-enduring commons institutions, stable across centuries, without privatization and without the state.15 She found the conditions under which it succeeds — clear boundaries, monitoring, graduated sanctions, conflict resolution, eight principles; those meeting six or more generally endure, those failing most collapse.30 The lesson is not predation, the lesson is governance — restored feedback. And one should know where Hardin's text came from: embedded in a population-control argument, with eugenic freight.31 The camouflage word had an aftertaste from the start.
What tips onto the substrate
There is a predation that kills no rival, because its victim never sits at the table at all. It tips the costs outside.
Take carbon dioxide. The social cost of a tonne, per the comprehensive recalculation, sits at roughly 185 dollars — 3.6 times the official figure of 51.8 The model has a broad range, 44 to 413 dollars, the point estimate is uncertain; contested; that the harm is large and real is not. And once such costs are priced in, whole industries turn unprofitable that today report a profit — the profit was the skimmed difference.32
This is the purest form. The price you do not pay is the price someone else pays, later, elsewhere, without a voice. Externalized costs are predation upon the absent.
The contest whose losing condition is annihilation
And now the case that brings everything to a point. They call nuclear deterrence a success: since 1945, no war between the great powers. So, they say, escalation is the price of peace.
Look closer. The stability-instability paradox shows that the "stability" at the top — the mutual threat of annihilation — can even fuel conflict below, because both sides feel safe that it will never fully escalate.9 The absence of a third world war fits luck as well as steering; the causation is unprovable, "it kept the peace" and "we got lucky" both fit the same record. contested
And the arena burns. Nine states together spent 91.4 billion dollars on nuclear weapons in 2023, 10.7 billion more than the year before, roughly 3,000 dollars a second; the US alone 51.5 billion.33 That is consumed substrate in pure form, and the participants are trapped: none can leave alone.
Here the cut worth keeping. A contest whose losing condition is the annihilation of all is not bounded rivalry. It has lost the open outcome that good competition needs. It is predation calling itself security.
The human is a conditional cooperator
That leaves the last camouflage word, the strongest, because it poses as realism: "That is just human nature." Selfish at the core, and the market at least channels the selfishness into the productive.
But look into the lab. Set humans at a good that all use and all must fund, and they cooperate — conditionally. Where there is the option to punish free-riders, contributions hold at 50 to 95 percent. Remove the punishment, and cooperation falls toward zero.14 Selfishness is not the constant. The condition is the constant: preserved feedback, credible sanction.
That inverts the whole story. Rent-seeking, capture, skimming are not the human, they are the output of captured institutions — behavior hangs on the arrangement, not on a fixed nature. "Human nature" is the word with which one declares the severed feedback inevitable. It is not. Cooperation collapses only when you take its feedback away — and that is exactly what the predator does, before he says it could never have been otherwise.
The tooth is not the contest
So, once more, so it holds. We praise competition — the real, the bounded, the kind that discovers prices and corrects errors and keeps power honest. We praise it without reservation, for it is the procedure by which an open order lives.
And we cut the camouflage. Predation is not competition. It is competition with the feedback cut: asymmetric stakes, suppressed signal, externalized cost, compelled escalation, consumed substrate. It borrows the words "free market," "low prices," "human nature," "deterrence," and with borrowed dignity it kills the very thing it borrowed the dignity from.
And the one great line running through it all: the part that optimizes against the whole that carries it has a name, once it becomes the principle of the whole. In the cell it is called cancer. The wolf is not the cancer. The wolf belongs in the picture. The tooth has its station. But the tooth is not the contest — and a system that raises predation to its constitution eats itself from within and calls it, to the last, competition.
Sources
1. [E/I] Bianconi et al. (2013). An estimation of the number of cells in the human body. Annals of Human Biology. [no link on file]
2. [E/I] Aktipis, C.A. et al. (2015). Cancer and intercellular cooperation. Royal Society Open Science 4:170470. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5666247/
3. [E/I] PLOS Biology (2025). Applying multilevel selection to understand cancer evolution. PLOS Biology. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003290
4. [E] Hayek, F. (1945). The Use of Knowledge in Society. American Economic Review 35(4):519. https://cdn.mises.org/qjae5_3_3.pdf
5. [E/I] Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy ("creative destruction"). https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=econrealestatefacpub
6. [E/I] Brooke Group v. Brown & Williamson, 509 U.S. 209 (1993). https://yalelawjournal.org/pdf/HemphillWeiser_ab5gd5ks.pdf
7. [E/I] Khan, L. (2017). Amazon's Antitrust Paradox. Yale Law Journal 126:710. https://yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox
8. [E/I] Rennert, K. et al. (2022). Comprehensive evidence implies a higher social cost of CO2. Nature 610:687. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05224-9
9. [I] Snyder, G. (1965). Stability–instability paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability%E2%80%93instability_paradox
10. [E] Nowak, M. (2006). Five Rules for the Evolution of Cooperation. Science 314:1560.
11. [P/I] Science Advances (2025). Coevolution of cooperative lifestyles and reduced cancer prevalence in mammals. Science Advances. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adw0685
12. [I/P] Kropotkin, P. (1902). Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution
13. [E/I] Stigler, G. (1971). The Theory of Economic Regulation. Bell Journal of Economics 2:3. https://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs4751/files/downloads/Books/GW%20Reg%20Studies%20-%20Stigler,%20The%20Economic%20Theory%20of%20Economic%20Regulation%20-%20CCoglianese.pdf
14. [E] Fehr, E. & Gächter, S. (2000). Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments. American Economic Review 90(4):980. https://web.mit.edu/14.160/www/Coop_PunAER.pdf
15. [E] Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press. https://www.actu-environnement.com/media/pdf/ostrom_1990.pdf
16. [P] McGee, J. (1958). Predatory Price Cutting: The Standard Oil (N.J.) Case. Journal of Law & Economics 1:137–169. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa169.pdf
17. [I] Leslie, C. (2012). Revisiting the Revisionist History of Standard Oil. Southern California Law Review 85:573. https://scholarship.law.uci.edu/faculty_scholarship/70/
18. [E] Areeda, P. & Turner, D. (1975). Predatory Pricing and Related Practices under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Harvard Law Review 88:697. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2827&context=faculty_scholarship
19. [I] De Loecker, J. & Eeckhout, J. (2017). The Rise of Market Power and the Macroeconomic Implications. NBER WP 23687 / QJE. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23687/w23687.pdf
20. [I] De Loecker, J. & Eeckhout, J. (2018). Global Market Power. NBER WP 24768. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24768/w24768.pdf
21. [E/I] Autor, D., Dorn, D., Katz, L., Patterson, C., Van Reenen, J. (2020). The Fall of the Labor Share and the Rise of Superstar Firms. QJE 135(2):645–709. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23396/w23396.pdf
22. [E/I] Azar, J. & Marinescu, I. (2024). Monopsony Power in the Labor Market: From Theory to Policy. Annual Review of Economics. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-072823-030431
23. [E/I] Boyer, M. & Kotchoni, R. (2015). How Much Do Cartels Overcharge? Review of Industrial Organization 47:119–153. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11151-015-9472-1
24. [I] Connor, J. & Lande, R. (2010–2014). Cartel overcharge database. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4906907
25. [E] Tullock, G. (1967). The Welfare Costs of Tariffs, Monopolies, and Theft. Western Economic Journal 5:224. https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentSeeking.html
26. [I] Krueger, A. (1974). The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society. American Economic Review 64:291. https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentSeeking.html
27. [I] Carrigan, C. & Coglianese, C. (2016). Capturing Regulatory Reality: Stigler's The Theory of Economic Regulation. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1650/
28. [E] Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162:1243–1248. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
29. [E] Rodgers, C. et al. (n.d.). Historical-commons critique (Tragedy of the commons synthesis). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
30. [E/I] Ostrom design principles, catalogued in Baggio et al. (2016) and Ratner/Cox applicability review. Sustainability 9(7):1287. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/7/1287
31. [E/P] Proposition — asserted, not claimed by a single source (Hardin's 1968 text embedded in a population-control argument, eugenic freight). [no link on file]
32. [I/P] Capitals Coalition / Trucost–S&P (2024). Unpriced Environmental Costs: The Top Externalities of the Global Market. https://capitalscoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Unpriced-Environmental-Costs-The-Top-Externalities-of-the-Global-Market-Report.pdf
33. [E] ICAN (2024). Global Nuclear Weapons Spending 2023. https://www.voanews.com/a/spending-on-nuclear-weapons-hit-91-4-billion-in-2023-watchdog-finds/7658631.html
Status: E = established/belegt, I = interpretation, P = proposition. The structural cut in "Two things" is a proposition [P], supported by the data, not deduced from it; the magnitudes for markups, cartels, SC-CO2, and deterrence causation are contested and marked as such. Boundaries and primary sources: https://mycelorium.github.io/predator-principle/ · CC BY 4.0 · Nirodha Collective